Why do we have such problems finding good people to serve in positions of leadership in this country?
I've heard it said that "Character is what you do when no one is looking." The implication being that if your behavior in public is consistent with your behavior in private, then you have strength of character. In my opinion, character is only one half of the equation when we are considering to whom we should give our votes. Character may be what you do when nobody is looking, but leadership is what you do when they are. Character in private does nothing for those who would otherwise be strengthened by your actions. Leadership is crippled when it is not accompanied by good character.
That said, I ask again, why do we have such problems finding good people to serve in positions of leadership in this country?
I submit to you that it is because We the People have become lazy and lacking in discernment. We have before us, in these last months three wonderful examples of what happens when lack of character meets lack of discernment.
I shall start with Mr. Franken.
Mr. Franken gained the endorsement of his party(political parties are despicable things which tend to distract people from the real job of choosing a candidate by providing an "easy button", but I digress.), ran a campaign, and, when the result of the vote was close, asked for a recount. These are all reasonable actions for someone seeking political office.
The recount, however, has been fraught with bias and irregularities. This is where one expects a person of character to show their true colors. One would expect Mr. Franken to issue a statement saying that until he, himself along with the people of Minnesota are satisfied that the election results and recounts are true and without bias or irregularities, he would refuse to accept the seat. Has he done so?
Next up is Mr. Burris.
Mr. Burris was appointed to a senate seat by a man under investigation for corruption, specifically corruption regarding the sale of that particular seat. What man of character would accept any position of authority under such a cloud? Doing so can only serve to cast suspicion on one's entire life and career and bring shame to one's family. And yet, Mr. Burris has not only accepted the seat, but has engaged in legal wrangling to frustrate the well intentioned attempts of Congress to deny him the seat under these conditions.
One challenges the good people of IL (I know there are some good people in IL) to recall Mr. Burris as soon as can possibly be arranged and likewise a challenge to the good people of Minnesota in regard to Mr. Franken. If We the People want people of good character to be our representatives, then we must start doing what is necessary to make such a change. That starts with refusing to allow those of demonstrated poor character to continue serving past such demonstrations. It continues with making an active effort to find people of demonstrably good character to fill those seats.
I refer you to http://www.primarychallenge.org/ for a starting place. This is a site asking for folks to help them identify RINOs and find the names of good people to challenge them in your state's primary elections. (RINO = Republican In Name Only- I am not a republican, I am a conservative but I support the notion of replacing those who are not representing their constituency's wishes in this manner as a good start - you liberals will have to find your own site)
You are probably asking yourself who the third example is. I would ask you to examine the actions and words of Mr. Obama. He promised transparency and yet has spent significant amounts of money to avoid verifying that he is Constitutionally qualified to sit as president when a minimal fee would have sufficed to remove the challenges to his election. With this refusal, he plunges our country into a Constitutional crisis and jeopardizes the careers of every serviceman and woman in our military. This has been made to seem a small matter, something of no consequence, ridiculous even. But how arrogant and disrespectful of the American people is it to take the office of POTUS with such an easily addressed question unresolved?
I challenge the American people to really look at this man's actions and words over his lifetime. You tell me if this is a man of good character. Be prepared to defend your position.
For the next election cycle, I challenge the people of America to disregard the admittedly biased mouthings of the MSM and research the candidates yourselves. Vote, not by party, but by principle. Be guided not by the mouthings of talking heads and celebrities but by the dictates of your own conscience and common sense. Do not sympathize with those who have failed morally, or allow the lecherous, drunken or fiscally unsound private behaviors of someone requesting to serve as our leader to be glossed over but rather demand good character and adherence to high moral standards from those we put into positions of leadership. We are better than that. We need leaders who exemplify the standards we want our nation to adhere to who can demonstrate them to the world. We have the God given freedom to do so, but with freedom comes responsibility. This is not someone else's job-it is ours, individually.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee." ~Numbers 11:16
Monday, January 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
You out did yourself on this post. Truly thought provoking.
Thanks DR. I couldn't bring myself to watch the inuaguration today.
I am praying for our military and hoping the SCOTUS addresses the merits of the cases before it quickly to afford our servicemen and women the peace of mind of knowing that they are not violating their oaths to obey the commander in chief.
And thanks for the link too. :)
It's true We The People have gotten complacent. How else would the GOP have ended up with McLame?
Thanks for stopping by Jenn.
In answer to your question:
"Two party system" rhetoric
Allowing the MSM to tell us that only certain candidates are "electable".
They can lie all they like, but it's only a problem for society when we start believing them.
Call Me Mom,
I am also praying hard for our Republic. God has worked miracles before and you are welcome for the link. I thought it was a must read.
Dear Mom,
Thanks for this great post. I am slow to find it, but it is really one of your best.
By your standards, which I full agree with, we need to remove just about all of the members of Congress, and very carefully qualify all of their replacements. I just don't think that the American people have the intestinal fortitude for such a task these days. That would take real courage and integrity, and if we had that, we would have never gotten ourselves into this mess.
We are going to have to take some time to re-educate America, to re-instill the virtues of integrity, of seriousness, of honesty, honor, and a host of other old fashioned concepts that are almost lost in modern America. Until that is done, I don't see how we can hope to hold politicians accountable for their foul behaviour; they are just doing what is expected of them (or at least assumed they will do).
I agree with DR and Dr. D., it is one of your best posts. I may have more to say later, but for now I have to go (we have an athletic event in Tulsa this morning).
Great post. Yes, good character is a rare commodity nowadays. Look at the likes of Barney Frank (the Banking Queen) and his liberal cohorts whose legislation brought us the Freddie/Fannie/Mac/Fae meltdown. Currently, they are disassociating themselves from the entire debacle because they meant well. Yeah, well you know what they say about the road to good intentions.
Dr. D. -
I advocated the Primary Challenge site because I think their first goal-that of identifying RINOs is the necessary first step. Their second goal-that of identifying people of good character and competence to run for office is an excellent second step for Americans in general.
Your statement that we need to re-instill those old fashioned values is good as far as it goes. I think we are at a point where we need to re-educate folks on the differences between objective and subjective and how to act on those differences.
Subjective-He's a really great guy and I enjoy talking to him or I don't like him personally, he makes me uncomfortable.
Objective- This is what he has said. This is what he has done. These things are or are not in agreement with my principles. He has kept his word. He has broken his word. He was unable to keep his word due to circumstances beyond his control.
Until we can look at candidates with true objectivity, we will not be electing the leaders our country needs.
Terry,
Good luck at the event. Let me know how it goes. Mine just passed his driver's test, so I'm enjoying a new cause for prayer. :)
Cube,
Nice to see you here. Thanks and welcome.
I, too, have heard the saying that the road to H*** is paved with good intentions.
You are entirely correct in that good intentions will not suffice in any circumstance without the necessary, objective ability to formulate a plan that will yield the desired results within a moral and religious framework.
Mom, much of your post dealt with how we should evaluate the people who run for office.
But your first line was, "Why do we have such problems finding good people to serve in positions of leadership in this country?" which really is a different matter, as I see it. It is a topic that is worthy of some discussion as well.
This last Presidential election is a case in point. We had a choice between an avowed Marxist and his good friend, a mavrick internationalist. Neither of them are dedicated to doing what is good for the United States. Why did we not have a candidate, put forward by one of the major parties, who stood squarely for the interests of America?
There are several answers to this, of course. Part of it has to do with the fact that the major parties no longer stand for what is good for America, they only stand for what they think will get them elected, nothing more.
But to return to the issue of finding candidates, why can we not find good candidates? I think a major factor is the way we have opened up the process to become a public inquisition into the personal life of a potential candidate, to the point that most good people simply will not tolerate the invasion of privacy. I know that I would not.
It is certainly true that we want to know if a prospective candidate is hiding some significant moral flaw (although the MSM managed to overlook a number of those this last time -- they have very selective vision!), but they send teams of reporters to dig up any tiny scrap of dirt on a candidate, and where none is to be found, they manufacture some. Witness what they did with Sarah Palin. The MSM treatment of her and her family was truly despicable. As long as this is tolerated, and even encouraged as it was in this campaign, we will not be able to find good candidates. The people we really want to have for candidates would not even faintly consider running for office, any office.
Dr. D.
You said:" I think a major factor is the way we have opened up the process to become a public inquisition into the personal life of a potential candidate, to the point that most good people simply will not tolerate the invasion of privacy."
You have a point there, but the better point is that the MSM are also corrupt and biased. I think if there were some reassurance of even-handed coverage, there would be more folks willing to take on the challenge of public life.
I think the press needs to be reminded that they are only a valuable part of the equation of freedom if they are responsible in their coverage of the news. I know I want facts, not conjecture or spin, just the facts. I hope I am not so intellectually impoverished as to be incapable of forming my own opinions.
There is a legitimate need for the press to dig up dirt, but it must be presented without bias.
For example:
Say a candidate had a traffic ticket for 5 miles over the posted limit. Presenting that person as a habitual speeder with no consideration for the law or the safety of other motorists is ridiculous.
If he has 50 tickets, that's worth knowing. If he has one or two that's not something I would be particularly concerned about.
By all means inform me, because if the other candidate is squeaky clean, that could be a determining factor for me. But no spin please.
How can we get the MSM from where they are now up to that level of reporting?
That is certainly one peice of the puzzle.
Dear Mom,
There is no question that the media is biased and corrupt. That is certainly agreed.
But the question you originally posed was "Why do we have such problems finding good people to serve in positions of leadership in this country?" and that is not because of media corruption. Honest media would help a great deal, but media that knew the proper level of restrain, that did not tear a person to bit searching for dirt, would make a world of difference. Having some respect for the privacy of the person is important. I am quite certain that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would have never, ever have submitted to anything like the current invasive media probing that is considered "good investigative journalism." I would still maintain that this is the reason we cannot get good candidates, not the fact that the media is corrupt.
Dr. D.
I'm confused. Are you saying that the media's lack of respect for personal privacy is the problem or that the problem is an overall lack of people who qualify as good candidates, or that we lack people who would not submit to the media's "feeding frenzy" ways?
Mr. Jefferson, while he acknowledged the role of the media on one hand:
"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."
bewailed their behavior on the other:
"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."
He also makes the point:
"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood."
I think what we are seeing in the press today is nothing new.
Technology, however, has changed the speed at which news can be presented as well as changing the way that is acceptable for news to be presented.
In a newspaper in, say Boston in 1787, I tend to think that any spin/bias or making up of dirt would be viewed as an opportunity for the competitors of a paper to get more readers for their own paper. The truth was recognized as a valuable commodity in and of itself. Reporters had a duty to report the truth or be fired. I don't think that is any longer the case.
I also believe the MSM is no longer functioning as an independent entity, but rather as a huge conglomerate with no one viewing anything that doesn't come from the AP as legitimate.(unless they're making it up themselves -in house.) I read an account of a correspondent for a major newspaper in the middle east calling his editor to report on a newsworthy event and the editor wouldn't take the word of his own reporter. The reporter then called the AP, gave them the story and went back to his editor who found it acceptable now that it was on the AP bulletin.
This is a problem. It is a signal to us that there is no independent reporting anymore aside from a few local small-town papers.
But I'm off on a rabbit trail. My apologies. I did say that the press is one part of the problem. Are you saying that you think it is the entire problem?
Dear Mom,
The point I am trying to make, perhaps not getting through very well, is that there may be good candidates, but that we will not be able to persuade them to run in the current environment. I don't think that there are a lot of good candidates, and there may not be any at all, but I think that there may be some. But as long as becoming a candidate means a complete loss of personal privacy and the absurd harassment that we now apply to candidates for office, I do not think the good candidates, if they exist, will apply. They will simply say, "No thank you."
I understand the importance of having the press and the rest of the media look at the records of our candidates. In times past, this has been useful and it has exposed some who were unfit to serve. There was also, in times past, a sense of restraint, a sense of what was relevant and what was irrelevant, and the press was not partisan as it is today. The fact that a candidate is a habitual drunkard is certainly relevant; the fact that he was found drunk once in a long life is probably not relevant. Today's press would not draw any such distinctions, nor does the public seem to be able to tell the difference. The press today seem to think that they are owed an answer to any question that they can think of to ask. Some people have parts of their lives that they prefer not to discuss for perfectly good reasons. In today's environment, this will definitely be held against them, and the press will dig all the more ardently. All of this discourages most good people from even considering politics today.
I doubt very seriously that there's any shortage of good candidates - decent, God-fearing, family oriented, patriotic, constitutionally astute citizens - except maybe in the ultra-liberal states like Massachusetts, but I know that there is a shortage of good voters willing to vote for these good candidates...
"nor does the public seem to be able to tell the difference.".....";I know that there is a shortage of good voters willing to vote for these good candidates...
"
Gentlemen,
You both express a concern over the lack of discernment in the voting public.
I too, sense that lack. If this is the key to the matter, then what is causing such a lack of discernment and how can we counter it? Any ideas?
My post started with "Why do we have such problems finding good people to serve in positions of leadership in this country?"
Mr. Morris says we do have good people willing to run, but we lack a discerning voter base.
Dr. D. says he thinks a lack of restraint on the part of the press is a culprit in dissuading folks to run for office.
I think there is a lack of discernment, a lack of restraint on the part of the press and also a lack of understanding about what is required for the job of senator or representative. If I don't understand what the job is, then why would I risk my reputation to throw my hat into the ring?
I've been in a position to ask people to take on volunteer positions and I can say with authority that if the person you want in a certain position doesn't understand duties of the position, they will not take it.
Do you think that could be a starting point for recruiting more "good" candidates.
Mom, I can't answer your question right now, but I gave a partial list of the qualities that I consider essential in a "good", qualified candidate, the point of the list being, in context, that there's a shortage of voters in this country who could really give two hoots about these qualities. They care about, first and foremost, what a given candidate can, or will, or will promise to do for them and their particular pet agendas, and that's all they care about. In other words, this country is dominated by self-destructive liberals, pure and simple.
When I said that there's no shortage of qualified candidates, what I meant was that in a country of 300+ million, the number of decent candidates needed to hold governmental positions in order to keep the country strong and viable is relatively small. We have enough qualified people to occupy these positions, and then some, but they can never be voted into and retain these positions in large enough numbers so long as liberalism dominates in this country. And with the fast-changing demographics in the nation, I don't think we're gaining any ground.
Ideal conditions for restoring some semblance of Republican (as in founding father Republicanism) common sense in this country might be, for the sake of argument, a gradual return to an 80% WASP majority, or somewhere thereabouts. I don't see that ever happening again.
I wrote:
Ideal conditions for restoring some semblance of Republican (as in founding father Republicanism) common sense in this country might be, for the sake of argument, a gradual return to an 80% WASP majority, or somewhere thereabouts. I don't see that ever happening again.
By the way, if I were to decide to run for dog-catcher, even in "conservative" Oklahoma, that statement would be enough to ruin any chances I might have of winning. That is where we are.
We seem to be talking past each other because we are addressing two different questions. Mom's original question, at the beginning of her post was, "Why do we have such problems finding good people to serve in positions of leadership in this country?" This is the question of finding good candidates.
The second question is that of getting them elected in modern, liberal infected America.
For the last Presidential election, we did not have good candidates running, so winning the election was really a moot point. I was not able to support the candidate of either major party, and I know that I am not alone in this.
These are two separate issues. Each is a serious problem, and while they are related in terms of getting good people into office, they are different problems. If we cannot see the difference, we cannot hope to address the problems constructively.
Dr. D.,
I don't think we're talking around one another. I understood your point, and I more or less agree with it. After all, if there's virtually no chance of a principled conservative winning a given election, local, state, national, without having to compromise his principles, or, worse, lie, then what purpose is there in putting in the time, effort, and money necessary to get on the ballot in first place? Not to mention that in liberal dominated America -- where liberals dominate -- principled conservative candidates expose themselves and their families to the scrutiny of a liberal worldview; a worldview that, very simply stated, counts good for evil, and evil for good.
Terry, you said, "for the sake of argument, a gradual return to an 80% WASP majority, or somewhere thereabouts."
I had to take a bit to think about that. VA had posted a bit about how strange some folks found these Anglo-Saxon types to be, because we wanted our space. It made me wonder if other peoples enjoyed living close together, cheek by jowl, as it were. VA shared that, from her own observations such was indeed the case.
Taking that into account, do you think that the problem could be addressed with the return of our country to Biblical values,(also unlikely at this point, I'll grant you) or do you think our values are truly the result of racial/ethnic differences, never to be resolved?
I'll tell you that I am thinking of your post about your artist friend(acquaintance?). You shared the same values of hard work and self reliance but had come from different backgrounds, while the other fellow from his area did not and expected help.
Are we looking at individual differences in your opinion or racial/ethnic ones with occasional individuals making the exception to the rules?
I'm not sure I'm asking the right question, but I'm thinking and haven't sorted out what I'm thinking yet.
Mom, I'll have to get back to you with a fuller explanation because it's a complicated issue.
But yes, I think Alexei is the exception to the rule, maybe even the extreme exception. And yes, a return to Biblical-Christian values would go a long way to saving the country in my opinion. And yes, I think race and culture plays a big role in the particular brand of religion a given individual is inclined or disposed to accept and follow.
There are about as many interpretations of scripture as there are people reading it. You've heard of "Red Letter Christians?" I don't think I could disagree with them more. Read Father Michael's comments over at WWWW if you're unaware of this group and what it's all about.
By the way, Mom, I think I'm done using the term "American experiment." Most scientific experiments are conducted in a lab, in a controlled environment, where the person or persons conducting the experiment don't just throw together incompatible and volatile chemicals and hope for the best. Such would be insane, not to mention deadly.
But when people speak so approvingly about the ongoing "American experiment," that's exactly what they find so attractive about it -- "we put in one supposedly incompatible material and nothing happened, let's try this chemical, in a larger measure, and see what happens."
Know what I mean?
Terry,
I know what you mean, but I consider the term valid for a couple of reasons.
1.) It is a political experiment. Our founders did not just rebel and then set up the same kind of government that they had had or borrow a form of government from some other country they thought they liked better. They thought about what would be the best way to accomplish their goal and formulated a new method of getting to that goal.
We are still waiting to see if this form of government can be maintained through several generations. If it is the best, most desirable form of government, one would think it's people would see the wisdom of such maintenance and keep it going.
2.) It is a religious experiment. A test of faith, if you will. Throughout the Bible, God has required individuals to stand alone for what is right in order that His goals be accomplished. I think this government, in it's inception and form have been modeled to reflect God's requirement for individual responsibility and action.
To form a government, having faith - as the founders repeatedly said they did - that God would bless it because it honors His overarching authority as the author of men's rights upon this Earth, is a test of faith.
When one is experimenting with a new car design, one tests it with different road conditions, weather, drivers, and replacement parts. This is no different. The Constitution is the new government design and we are just the latest set of drivers. Our security concerns are the hazardous weather, our economy, a test of how our Constitution will function with cheaper replacement parts.
It is an experiment, it's just a very long term experiment from our perspective.
1.) It is a political experiment. Our founders did not just rebel and then set up the same kind of government that they had had or borrow a form of government from some other country they thought they liked better. They thought about what would be the best way to accomplish their goal and formulated a new method of getting to that goal.
Mom,
First of all I do not think, if I'm reading you correctly, that I can agree with this. But what is it you mean by "they formulated a new method of getting to that goal?" What "new method" are you talking about, the Constitution, it's core principles? I don't understand...
Mom wrote:
The Constitution is the new government design and we are just the latest set of drivers.
If we're the latest drivers, and the constitution is the vehicle, then I think we probably need to pull the vehicle over, take a few moments to gather our thoughts, and find the shortest route to an accredited driving school. LOL
Terry,
I understand that Rome had a republic long before we did, but I think the Constitution and it's underlying principles were revolutionary in the arena of political entities.
The declaration that human rights are granted by God and that governments must have the consent of the governed, was and remains a radically new idea. (Although I will grant you a de jure vs. de facto challenge in that when a government became too oppressive, the people would revolt.)
The people of a state had, to that point, been viewed as the property of that state. England had only recently granted that children(and wives) were the property of their husbands rather than the property of the state. Even so, that was a case of the state of England gaving up it's perceived right of ownership of those individuals to other individuals over whom it retained the right of ownership. (If the king said kill that man-he would be killed. Folks might protest, but even the right to protest such an arbitrary use of kiingly authority was fairly recent.) To establish a government that reversed that idea of state ownership was new.
Does that clarify my thinking in this regard? Or are we failing to communicate? Or is this something will will agree to disagree on and move forward recognizing that we all have differences?
LOL, Terry, but true.
That is what this post is about, isn't it? Where are those accredited driving instructors to lead us in the correct and efficient operation of this vehicle?
Does that clarify my thinking in this regard?
Yes, it's helpful. You're saying that "We the People" was a new innovation, or, a principle newly applied in the history of nations? Okay, I can go along with that. But, you see, I had to re-write that sentence a couple of times to get it right. After all, even Jefferson admitted that no sentiment expressed in the Declaration of Independence was a new or a radical idea. And since the Constitution follows the pattern outlined in the DoI, then there's no new idea involved there either.
Nonetheless, I cannot believe that Jefferson and the other founding fathers would in any way approve of the way we have haphazardly conducted this so-called experiment, opening up the flood-gates and handing off the proverbial keys to peoples and cultures incompatible with our own.
Where are those accredited driving instructors to lead us in the correct and efficient operation of this vehicle?
In the history books, i.e., original source documents such as the Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Speech, The Monroe Doctrine, and so forth and so on. Minus all the highminded "this is the 21st century, no one wants to go back to the horse and buggy days" crap, of course.
I think you are correct that our founders would be appalled. They said repeatedly that the people needed to be a responsible and moral people in order for the government to work. I have no doubt that immigration enforcement would be stringent were they here today.
I have driven a horse and carriage for a profession. It's a lot of fun. Dangerous, messy and cold in the wintertime, but a lot of fun. (I'll warn you that horse drawn sleds are mighty addictive to drive.)
There's value in having done that.
To the history books with us! :)
Mom,
I've told the story before, but I'll tell it again...
One of my pursuits while living in Alaska (after moving out of the apartment complex and into a house on "Mirror Lake") was to build a dog-sled team. Why? I don't know, I was young and energetic and full of ... whatever. And I lived at the time in Alaska, home of the Iditarod. You get it, right?
Anyway, I managed to gather up about six dogs, Malamutes, Siberian Huskies, and what have you, several of which came from the dog-pound, one of which, at least, came from a superior USAF officer. Problem was, I never acquired a sled before the dogs began to cause me more problems than I could personally account for, although I had a good line on one (a fixer-upper) at a very low price.
What was I going to do with the sled and my team? I don't know! Maybe enter the Iditarod; you know, kill myself, and/or, go for an occasional ride to the local video store. LOL
Terry, I hadn't heard that story. Thank you for sharing it.
It reminds me that automobiles were seen as the solution to the problem of horse pollution.
Those were the days, debating with animal rights activists, (Only one attempt by them to deliberately murder me that I'm aware of.
I suppose I should've expected that if I was going to "exploit" animals in that fashion in the Berkeley of the Midwest.), the bells jingling in the wintertime, rescuing people from some of the stranger denizens of State St. on occasion. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there.
That was the best job.
Too bad you couldn't have found a dog sled taxi service to bear the brunt of owning and caring for the dogs and equipment for you. I'll bet you would have had a lot of fun.
Nice post CMM, It's sad not more people think and write as well as you today. Myself included.
My son age 18 soon age 19 is serving under Obama as a U.S. Marine. His journey has just begun... My journey started out with me serving in the Marines too... but I had a man I was proud to call honorable as my President. Of coarse that was the honorable Ronald Reagan.
I feel for my son... but he was raised by a Marine so he'll do very well despite the current lack of leadership in Washington.
I agree with just about everything you post and comment on and if you wish to challenge me over at Voice of Conservative America I welcome and look forward to that too.
Thank You, JARNCO5.
It's been a day, so that was a very welcome encouragement. My brother was in the marines and I have a great deal of respect for those who serve.
I wish We the People had given your son a better commander in chief under whom to serve.
You're not so bad with a keyboard yourself and I have enjoyed the recent discussions at your site.
"We must all hang together or we will assuredly hang separately."
Thank You CMM,
You said: "It's been a day, so that was a very welcome encouragement"
I receive encouragement from reading what you post... obviously you're a very talented writer.
Please thank your brother from me for his service and tell him that I said Semper Fi.
You said: "You're not so bad with a keyboard yourself"
Way to kind... I do my best.
You said:
"We must all hang together or we will assuredly hang separately."
Agree.
If you see that wordsmithing is needed on my site please let me know. I need to get better and I won't without the help of those who are more practiced and talented than myself. Just so you know the word Marine or Marines starts with an upper case "M" :)
So what do you think about Mike Huckabee?
JARNCO5
Thank you again. I will remember the "M" in Marines is to be capitalized and I will pass on your regards to my brother.
If I see any egregious errors I will certainly call your attention to them, as I trust you will do for me.
As for Mr. Huckabee, my son and brother-in-law both favored him in the last election. I preferred Mr. Tancredo. I was somewhat surprised by the zeal with which the press attacked Mr. Huckabee's candidacy. One wonders what they would do with a modern day Washington or Adams.
CMM,
What's the little known Tom Tancredo up to now that he's not a Rep. anymore? Interesting choice.
While I would love to see our borders controlled... of equal importance is keeping our common culture of which ENGLISH is of the utmost importance... Only English should be officially spoken in America in my opinion, after all it's the worlds citizens who want in. Those given entry have been shown favor by those who have been paying and working in country already. The least those wishing to immigrate could do is learn the language in return for entry.
STOPPING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is also key. This is racism plane and simple. It's also a form of welfare.
Stopping affirmative action and welfare will force those on the welfare roles to support the offspring they bring into this world.
Welfare for anyone regardless of race and reason should be reviewed. Plenty of physical laborers on welfare who can perform data entry or learn the skill.
All races can be improved through survival of the fittest (hard work)... this is the way societies are meant to evolve. Socialism is the exact opposite and causes the dumbing down of all races in the name of blame an victimhood.
Ironically the first culture to be destroyed in the world and America will be the European culture through reverse discrimination and affirmative action that created the standard of living many citizens of the world wish to come and partake in.
Some African Americans are decedents of slaves who helped the Europeans of the time create the America of today...many of the decedents of those slaves have fallen for the liberal ideal of equality through the new racist policy of Affirmative action. This racism will destroy European culture (America's true culture) and then turn on the African American who helped create the culture. How ironic that the leaders of the left are either to slow to grasp this concept or worse don't care.
Wake up people of all races, uncontrolled procreation for the purpose of becoming the majority destroys us all. If you follow leaders who cry victimhood then you are part of the problem and not the solution.
What's that last sentence of the paragraph say about Obama? He followed Rev. Wright all those 20 plus years.
Dr. D.,
I said as you quoted me correctly: "While I would love to see our borders controlled... of equal importance is keeping our common culture of which ENGLISH is of the utmost importance."
That means just what it says... I think the issue of immigration is EQUALLY important to America. Conservatives have to start from a position they can gain support with on immigration enforcement issues. Once the support base is built up then and only then will those concerned with illegal immigration issues be able to do something about it.
Citizens who want illegal immigration controlled have to pick candidates who have a shot at winning first and foremost.
Since you pointed out some of the concerns you have with Mike Huckabee please also see these 4 video's at Voice of Conservative America the last one is President Obama's stance on immigration. (video link provided below)
To me Obama is very alarming and some Americans think he is racist or at the vary least he does not care for European culture... even though it's been the predominant culture of the country he chose to live' in.
Mike Huckabee, Michael Steele and Marsha Blackburn On Immigration Followed By Our Presidents Position
JARNCO5, I went to the Huckabee web site you recommended, but none of the videos would play for me. I observed during the past presidential campaign that Huckabee and several others seemed quite adept at changing their message just as soon as they had determined which way the wind was blowing. For this reason, I think that what he may be saying today is not likely to be such a good indicator of his fundamental beliefs as what he did when he was in office as governor of Arkansas. At that time, he was not trying to impress the rest of the country, so he could be himself.
This is particularly important when we look at the current impostor in the White House (I do not recognize him as the President). He smooth talked people during the campaign, saying one thing to this group and the exact opposite to the next group and never being called on it. Now that he is in power, we are seeing him try to run rough shod over America, because as he says, "I won." We really need to try to look behind what the candidates (candidate wantabees) say when they are running to see what they really are. What they say during the campaign rarely bears any relation to who they really are. (This is true for both Dems and Reps.)
JARNCO5, you said, "What's that last sentence of the paragraph say about Obama? He followed Rev. Wright all those 20 plus years." in reference to a previous statement about following leaders who claim victimhood. Surely you have notice that there are only a very few black leaders in the country today who do not do exactly this. You are, of course, correct in your assertion, and I thought it was evident from the outset that BO was was going to be bad for the nation. He is a racist, as is his wife, and he is out for the destruction of America. He has said that he is a disciple of Saul Alinsky the author of Rules for Radicals, a book which among other things honors satan as the first and most successful radical because he rebelled and got his own kingdom. This is the set of guidelines BO is following, and it was drawn up specifically for the overthrow of America and the destruction of white society.
Yes, we have a problem.
Jarnco wrote:
Once the support base is built up then and only then will those concerned with illegal immigration issues be able to do something about it.
The support base for that is already there and well in place. That's what stopped federal "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," a.k.a. the Senate Amnesty Bill. That's what's responsible for all the concurrent state and local immigration laws we've seen take shape over the last few years; laws that are largely responsible for the attrition of 1.3 million illegal immigrants that we saw between July, 2007 and July, 2008.
With respect to Mike Huckabee, I've said before that there are things about him that I like. There are things about him that I don't like too, of course - his poor record on immigration.
However, I watched the Republican presidential debate held at the Reagan Library, and from my seat Mike Huckabee, though he was all but completely ignored by the host, won that debate hands-down. But like I said at the time, when you start talking states' rights and the need for executive experience in a POTUS, you're tugging at my heartstrings.
My goodness, I step out of town for a day and the conversation revs up. Perhaps I'd better make a new post before I leave the state for a few days later this week.
JARNCO5
I'm not sure what Mr. Tancredo is up to now.
I agree that English is a required unifying factor for our nation.
Clearly, We have moved beyond any need for affirmative action.
I'm not sure if socialism is a cause or result of the dumbing down of a population. I suspect it is the result. Our founding generation were certainly better educated than our population today.
The Islamic mandate to conquer the world trumps common sense when it comes to procreation.
I am assuming the last sentence to which you refer is your own about following leaders who cry victimhood, and I heartily concur.
Dr. D
Mr. Tancredo never wanted the presidency. He entered the race, by his own statement, to bring the problem of illegal immigration to public awareness. Once he considered that task completed, relinquished the race. How's that for presidential material? He sees a problem, determines a plan of action, engages in that plan until the objective is accomplished and goes home. In my opinion, the demonstrable fact that he didn't actually want the office was one of my primary reasons for taking another look at him. The legislation he proposed before finishing his legislative term supports my opinion that he would have been an excellent president for these times.
As for your chicken and egg discussion on English, I think that until we can accomplish a shift in attitude that says English is to be preferred because it's more American and we need not be ashamed to say so, we will not accomplish that goal.
Not sure how we got here from the original post, but a good discussion will wander off on rabbit trails occasionally.
JARNCO5
You said: "Citizens who want illegal immigration controlled have to pick candidates who have a shot at winning first and foremost"
I disagree. We need to pick candidates of good character first. Before we can do that, we need to learn how to discern good character.
You did manage to bring the discussion back around to the point of the post though. Thanks.
Dr. D.
Your comment goes to discernment. When We the People accept as a matter of course that a candidate will say different things to different groups of people without questioning the inherent character flaws revealed by such practice, what we are really doing is showing a lack of discernment.
Terry,
Glad you could join us. Go Oklahoma on states rights and while they're at it ask your legislature to require that every home have a firearm as they did during the pre-revolutionary days. I think that would send a clearer states rights message than any resolution. In the pre-revolutionary years, that measure was declared because of the threat of a French invasion. Mr. Obama believes that we need a citizen security force? I say give him one. A security force of armed and independent citizens, trained and ready to defend their country.
Here is part of what Tancredo is up to.
Dr.D,
To date I have had no other complaints on video's not playing from my site? Maybe I was modifying the post at the time you tried?
I use Firefox myself but, have used three different browsers that all worked with the video. (Chrome, Firefox, and Explorer)
Terry,
Thanks for the link showing what Tancredo is up to.
Terry, Thanks for the link to Mr. Tancredo's latest endeavors.
Post a Comment